Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Prehosp Disaster Med ; 39(1): 85-93, 2024 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38221901

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Interest in nuclear power as a cleaner and alternative energy source is increasing in many countries. Despite the relative safety of nuclear power, large-scale disasters such as the Fukushima Daiichi (Japan) and Chernobyl (Ukraine) meltdowns are a reminder that emergency preparedness and safety should be a priority. In an emergency situation, there is a need to balance the tension between a rapid response, preventing harm, protecting communities, and safeguarding workers and responders. The first line of defense for workers and responders is personal protective equipment (PPE), but the needs vary by situation and location. Better understanding this is vital to inform PPE needs for workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies. STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and describe the PPE used by different categories of workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies. METHODS: A systematic literature review format following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was utilized. Databases SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, INSPEC, and Web of Science were used to retrieve articles that examined the PPE recommended or utilized by responders to nuclear radiological disasters at nuclear power plants (NPPs). RESULTS: The search terms yielded 6,682 publications. After removal of duplicates, 5,587 sources continued through the systematic review process. This yielded 23 total articles for review, and five articles were added manually for a total of 28 articles reviewed in this study. Plant workers, decontamination or decommissioning workers, paramedics, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), emergency medical technicians, military, and support staff were the categories of responders identified for this type of disaster. Literature revealed that protective suits were the most common item of PPE required or recommended, followed by respirators and gloves (among others). However, adherence issues, human errors, and physiological factors frequently emerged as hinderances to the efficacy of these equipment in preventing contamination or efficiency of these responders. CONCLUSION: If worn correctly and consistently, PPE will reduce exposure to ionizing radiation during a nuclear and radiological accident or disaster. For the best results, standardization of equipment recommendations, clear guidelines, and adequate training in its use is paramount. As fields related to nuclear power and nuclear medicine expand, responder safety should be at the forefront of emergency preparedness and response planning.

2.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; 17: e479, 2023 09 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37667881

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize strategies for strengthening public health system resilience for pandemics, disasters, and other emergencies using a scorecard approach. METHODS: The United Nations Public Health System Resilience Scorecard (Scorecard) was applied across 5 workshops in Slovenia, Turkey, and the United States of America. The workshops focused on participants reviewing and discussing 23 questions/indicators. A Likert type scale was used for scoring with zero being the lowest and 5 the highest. The workshop scores were analyzed and discussed by participants to prioritize areas of need and develop resilience strategies. Data from all workshops were aggregated, analyzed, and interpreted to develop priorities representative of participating locations. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged representing the need for better integration of public health and disaster management systems. These include: assessing community disease burden; embedding long-term recovery groups in emergency systems; exploring mental health care needs; examining ecosystem risks; evaluating reserve funds; identifying what crisis communication strategies worked well; providing non-medical services; and reviewing resilience of existing facilities, alternate care sites, and institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The Scorecard is an effective tool for establishing baseline resilience and prioritizing actions. The strategies identified reflect areas in most need for investment to improve public health system resilience.


Assuntos
Desastres , Pandemias , Humanos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Ecossistema , Emergências , Saúde Pública
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...